JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This petition by the National Textile Corporation, a public sector undertaking impugns the award of the Industrial Tribunal (III), Kanpur upon adjudicating adjudication case No. 331 of 1975 in the matter relating to 10 employees working at the establishment of the National Textile Corporation, U.P. Limited, Unit, Muir Mills, Kanpur. 2. The facts of the case are that the aforesaid employees on being dissatisfied in being paid Rs. 2/- per day as wages as against Rs. 253/- paid as basic wage and dearness and food allowance to other workmen, sought parity in receiving wages equal to the other employees in similarly situated work, but denied to them. Thus, they raised an industrial dispute. 3. The matter which was referred for adjudication was to the effect, whether these employees were working at the establishment in continuous service were entitled to the same wages as others in the same establishment and if that was so, then with what further reliefs and from which date. Before the Industrial Tribunal it was the contention of the workmen that they were employed at the concern on various dates between 1961 to 1969 and they were discharging permanent nature of work which was part and incidental to the manufacturing process of the industry owned by the concern aforesaid. It was submitted before the Industrial Tribunal by the workmen that whereas they as, employees were insured under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and were members of the Provident Fund Scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and notwithstanding that they were in continuous service, they were singled out for payment at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day while others received Rs. 253/- as basic wage and dearness and food allowance. It was further contended that they were not allowed the benefit of leave with wages under Section 79 of the Factories Act, 1948. They demanded parity of emoluments and equity of conditions of services. 4. The National Textile Corporation in its written statement came out with the defence that these employees were not the employees of the concern but of an independent contractor, the issue was not an industrial dispute and the dispute had not been espoused correctly under the law and it could not be adjudicated. 5. The same submissions are repeated before the Court. 6. 5. The same submissions are repeated before the Court. 6. This Court has examined the impugned award, and heard learned counsel for the parties. This award has been pending consideration for 14 years. Some of the employees if they are continuing in service would have discharged almost 32 years of service. It is too late in the day that workmen working in the same establishment and discharging the same nature of work must receive emoluments which are not in parity. One aspect has been settled by the Supreme Court that for equal work there shall be equal pay. One argument on which this Court was not addressed and it is accepted that those employees who were working in the reeling department of the establishment, their work was no different than the other in the same department. The only submission which has been placed before the Court is that they are employees of an independent contractor. But this is not the matter in issue as the relevant aspect of the matter is what their emoluments should be. These employees have lent themselves to producing goods in the manufacturing process of this concern. If indeed the establishment is of the view that they are the employees of the contractor then all that the employees are concerned is that they must receive parity in pay. They cannot be sent down an alley to search which of the employers will give them parity. This obligation is on the industrial establishment where they work. 7. On record it is not denied that they have participated in production of the concern. Parity of pay is the right of the workmen. The argument that they are employees of an independent contractor was an after-thought. This contractor was never produced before the Industrial Tribunal and no one stopped the establishment from producing him. The camouflage of resisting the demands of the workmen with the submission that they are employees of an independent contractor can only be seen on strict proof. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the establishment was obliged to prove beyond reasonable doubt before the Industrial Tribunal that each employee was an employee of an independent contractor. On record they were shown as employees of the establishment. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the establishment was obliged to prove beyond reasonable doubt before the Industrial Tribunal that each employee was an employee of an independent contractor. On record they were shown as employees of the establishment. The Industrial Tribunal does not record any material on the basis of which it could satisfy itself that it was indeed the contractor who had employed these workmen. This academic argument will remain in academics when the petitioner could not prove before the Industrial Tribunal a plea which it took. 9. There is no reason for this Court by a certiorari upon examining the record to come to a conclusion other than the Industrial Tribunal. Further the Industrial Tribunal has committed no error on the basis of which the High Court can term the award as incorrect. 10. In the circumstances this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. The writ petition is dismissed with costs.